Is fishing cruel?

Eric86 said:
No, it's actually just an issue of whether or not you anthropomorphize. I don't.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's necessarily the issue. More likely is the issue of whether you believe humans are supreme, and the only beings with feelings or the ability to feel pain. Or that we are the only beings worth feeling concern about.

an⋅thro⋅po⋅mor⋅phize

/ˌæn
thinsp.png
θrə
thinsp.png
pəˈmɔr
thinsp.png
faɪz/ [an-thruh-puh-mawr-fahyz] S
—verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -phized, -phiz⋅ing.

to ascribe human form or attributes to (an animal, plant, material object, etc.).

Also, especially British, an⋅thro⋅po⋅mor⋅phise.

Origin:
1835—45; anthropomorph(ous) + -ize
thinsp.png



I don't consider the idea that animals feeling pain (or having emotions and thus being able to experience distress, fear, anxiety, etc.) is anthropomorphism, because A) clearly they don't have human form and B) I don't believe feelings/emotions are exclusive to humans.
 
My apologies if I sound dogmatic.

I believe in the preservation of all life and in that said I have made a personal commitment in living a vegetarian lifestyle. However I often get people telling me that vegetarians can still eat fish... the whole idea of a fish suffocating and having a hook in its body, and the fear and anxiety of it pulling away from the line has given enough reason for me to avoid all animals including fish.
 
ZenCat said:
I don't think that's necessarily the issue. More likely is the issue of whether you believe humans are supreme, and the only beings with feelings or the ability to feel pain. Or that we are the only beings worth feeling concern about.

an⋅thro⋅po⋅mor⋅phize

/ˌæn
thinsp.png
θrə
thinsp.png
pəˈmɔr
thinsp.png
faɪz/ [an-thruh-puh-mawr-fahyz] S
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -phized, -phiz⋅ing.

to ascribe human form or attributes to (an animal, plant, material object, etc.).

Also, especially British, an⋅thro⋅po⋅mor⋅phise.

Origin:
1835–45; anthropomorph(ous) + -ize
thinsp.png



I don't consider the idea that animals feeling pain (or having emotions and thus being able to experience distress, fear, anxiety, etc.) is anthropomorphism, because A) clearly they don't have human form and B) I don't believe feelings/emotions are exclusive to humans.
Click to expand...
Your point A is using the definition to argue against the definition itself...what the heck? Point B is entirely speculation as well.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have any concern for animals or whatever, just that a lot of people take it way too far, even to the point of caring more about animals than humans (like these people who think abortion is ok, but euthanising animals is the most horrible thing ever...give me a break [PETA nutcases, for example....though I guess that's kinda redundant, for the most part]).

Animals are always replaceable; humans are not.
 
Last edited:
Eric86 said:
Your point A is using the definition to argue against the definition itself...what the heck? Point B is entirely speculation as well.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree. You appear to consider my point A an argument against the definition of anthropomorphism when in fact is was an argument against your statement:

"it's actually just an issue of whether or not you anthropomorphize. I don't."

My point A illustrates that the discussion isn't an issue of anthropomorphism because the definition of anthropomorphism has two criteria


  • To ascribe human form
  • To ascribe human attributes
Therefore my point A (clearly they don't have human form) negates the first criteria of the definition (since none of us are ascribing human form to fish) and B (to ascribe human attributes) is not - as you suggest - "entirely speculation" since many of us live with animals and are abundantly aware that they possess and express emotion, feel pain, can suffer, etc. I am not anthropomorphizing the fish - as you believe I am - because I am not ascribing any sort of humanness to them.

Eric86 said:
I'm not saying we shouldn't have any concern for animals or whatever, just that a lot of people take it way too far, even to the point of caring more about animals than humans (like these people who think abortion is ok, but euthanising animals is the most horrible thing ever...give me a break [PETA nutcases, for example....though I guess that's kinda redundant, for the most part]).

Animals are always replaceable; humans are not.
Click to expand...

This is opinion, not fact, and while I certainly respect your right to your opinion, it doesn't make anyone else's opinion less valid :)

By the way, you're off on the PETA reference... PETA are ALL FOR euthanasia of pets, and have euthanized many, many shelter animals in highly controversial and well-documented cases. But I share your opinion that they are nutcases.
 
I still think that fishing is not harmful until you start leaving completely swallowed hooks in the fish. When this happens the fish will starve and has a hook inside of it. Then there are the people I have seen just tear the hook right out only having the fish bleeding profusely and tossing it back in where it floats belly up after swimming like five metres.

Proper setting of the hook should bring the desired result of hooking the fish right in the lip, no blood and its easier than easy to take the hook out, it also makes for a better fight between you and the fish. There are strategies to learn with setting hooks (depending on what type of fish your TARGETING). People not knowing how to properly set should have smaller limits of the amount of fish they are allowed to catch. BUt of course thats a little ridiculous to enforce.
 
Last edited:
Life is cruel.

Some people have common sense when they go fishing and some don't.
 
ZenCat said:
We'll have to agree to disagree. You appear to consider my point A an argument against the definition of anthropomorphism when in fact is was an argument against your statement:

"it's actually just an issue of whether or not you anthropomorphize. I don't."

My point A illustrates that the discussion isn't an issue of anthropomorphism because the definition of anthropomorphism has two criteria


  • To ascribe human form
  • To ascribe human attributes
Click to expand...
Actually, it doesn't have to be both. It can be one or the other, or both, but both is not required.
 
Eric86 said:
Animals are always replaceable; humans are not.
Click to expand...

It's really interesting how things are such a matter of perspective and opinion.
I respect that it is your opinion, and that is valid. But I disagree... and I miss my dogs and cats incredibly. And I'm not sure I even understand.

This has turned into an interesting thread :D
 
Last edited:
Indeed it has. :thumb:

The strange thing is even though I love fishing, I still feel conflicted about it. While my Se loves the "thrill of the hunt" and the sights and sounds and being completely in the moment, my Fi makes sure I fish as humanely as possibly but still tells me "you're taking pleasure out of the suffering of another being no matter how much you try and minimise that suffering and that is wrong". Damn ISFPness Fi vs Se conflicts are inevitable. :doh:
 
Soulful said:
It's really interesting how things are such a matter of perspective and opinion.
I respect that it is your opinion, and that is valid. But I disagree... and I miss my dogs and cats incredibly. And I'm not sure I even understand.

This has turned into an interesting thread :D
Click to expand...
Just because a person can miss them doesn't necessarily make them irreplaceable; I miss some as well, but I don't make a big deal out of it.
 
Eric86 said:
Just because a person can miss them doesn't necessarily make them irreplaceable; I miss some as well, but I don't make a big deal out of it.
Click to expand...

I think it's a personal experience. There are some people who are closer to their pets/animals than the humans in their life.
 
v.shadow said:
yeah. fishing is disgusting (but again, what human activity regarding other animals isn't?)
Click to expand...

What do you mean Shadow? I know sometimes animals experience atrocities because of humans, and that is truly awful. But what about the many wonderful moments. Every single time a dog is taken for a walk, gets to go swimming, cuddles up with it's "owner", greets it, and gets taken care of, and so on and so on and so on... :)
 
Quinlan said:
Indeed it has. :thumb:

The strange thing is even though I love fishing, I still feel conflicted about it. While my Se loves the "thrill of the hunt" and the sights and sounds and being completely in the moment, my Fi makes sure I fish as humanely as possibly but still tells me "you're taking pleasure out of the suffering of another being no matter how much you try and minimise that suffering and that is wrong". Damn ISFPness Fi vs Se conflicts are inevitable. :doh:
Click to expand...

(I skipped the first page)

Ehrm, just by you existing chances are you are causing the suffering of another being, be it animal or not; how do you reconcile with those feelings?

For the vegetarian above: Your eating an organism (plant) to continue your existence, plants just don't have a flight 'option.' If I recall correctly, while fish do try to escape from you and flee from you, they do not feel 'pain.' I see this as a 'view' for the pescetarian lifestyle. And, of course, don't plants have feelings?
 
Last edited:
Reon said:
(I skipped the first page)

Ehrm, just by you existing chances are you are causing the suffering of another being, be it animal or not; how do you reconcile with those feelings?

For the vegetarian above: Your eating an organism (plant) to continue your existence, plants just don't have a flight 'option.' If I recall correctly, while fish do try to escape from you and flee from you, they do not feel 'pain.' I see this as a 'view' for the pescetarian lifestyle. And, of course, don't plants have feelings?
Click to expand...

Sure I might be causing suffering just by existing, that may be unavoidable. It is the causing of suffering solely for "enjoyment" that bothers me.
 
Quinlan said:
Sure I might be causing suffering just by existing, that may be unavoidable. It is the causing of suffering solely for "enjoyment" that bothers me.
Click to expand...

Couldn't you avoid that by fishing when you want to eat fish? (Just wondering, not trying to be rude)
 
...but I fish for fun not just food, is that horribly wrong of me?
 
I wonder if there are any fish in hell? :thumb:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top